A brief excerpt from Ruby’s (aka “Harper Girl”) fringe show wherein she expresses her heartfelt adoration for the Dear Leader as opposed to all his potential leadership rivals as only a true blue groupie, Kool-Aid® drinker or run of the mill Bloggin’ Tory, possibly could.

The rather sad fact of the matter is that there are no potential leadership rivals on the right — it s a fairly thin bench when you think about it…

So, while Harper may well be in a state of absolutely brilliant ascendancy at the moment, it’s only by virtue of a relatively ineffectual opposition and a complete lack of any kind of serious challenge from within his own party comprised as it is of fossilized wrecks, bland technocrats, insufferable hacks, purblind ideologues, and thoroughly mediocre half-wits.

26 responses to “True Blue”

Man. I finally manage to repair my political morale after a difficult few months, and I’m made to witness this horror. Oh well–back to my Gestalt sessions. Thanks for that, Red…

I’ll give you this: I admire your continuing commitment to Enlightenment values despite having swum for years (willingly, almost joyfully) through the sewage-strewn Sargasso Sea of right-wing barbarism.

Now, Ruby’s act is definitely parody, but the fact that we need to weigh its plausibility speaks eloquently of the surreality of current Harperoid fandom. Really, if Shaidle or McMillan were to take their shows on the road, would they really be substantially different from Ruby’s satirical vaudeville?

After seeing countless references to “Poe” on the Internet, I finally looked it up and found Poe’s Law:

“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”

…which just makes me conclude that, innocuous or not, dead-pan parodies of various fundamentalisms are wastes of time. In fact, parody should be outlawed for a while until people rediscover its true value.

I guess Ti-Guy might respond that such dead-pan parodies–being so close thematically and tonally to that which they parody–cannot provide amusement or comedy precisely because they fit far too comfortably into the rhetorical modes of their targets. Parodies that are too close to their objects don’t enjoy the kind of critical distance which true insight requires, and I think Ti-Guy would argue that such insight is what makes effectively performed parody valuable.

Now, I would say that Ruby’s website actually does maintain the necessary critical distance, whereas–as Ti-Guy suggests–her Fringe act is far too “normal” (while keeping in mind that I’ve only seen a brief clip of it). Ruby’s persona just comes across as an obsessive eccentric who, in these days of teabagging and birthers, no longer represents a behavioural extremity.

I will admit of some latitude for subjectivity on this point, however. Take the “flamer” movement. I saw it as parody immediately, but my wife wasn’t so sure.

I think a parody of a male Harper fan would be more illustrative, not to mention novel. I think the phenomenon of the Harper man-crush is worth examining, as it I’m sure it would reveal plenty about why modern “conservatives” cling so desperately to traditional gender roles.

I’d do it myself, but I have a deep voice, shave once a day and don’t have that layer of baby-fat and those wide hips characteristic of the average Conservative male.

I’d do it myself, but I have a deep voice, shave once a day and don’t have that layer of baby-fat and those wide hips characteristic of the average Conservative male.

You know; that would be funny if it weren’t eerily true. It is almost a biological practical joke to have the most stalwart and vanguard defenders of traditional and ‘proper’ gender roles to have physically androgynous tendencies. I almost suspect there is an element of self-loathing involved. On the other hand, you do have that cadre of weightlifting tough guys or cowboys who lean right, though even in that charitable moment, you can find that even some of them engage in aesthetic rituals and ablutions that make them stay in the bathroom longer than a beauty pageant queen. With all that blustering, perhaps it is overcompensation? Luckily, other people understand the complexity of gender identity, and happily engage in whatever social activity that is attuned to their own sense of self. It is no coincidence that such people exude a confidence that eclipses even the most ardent displays of contrived masculinity (yet ironically, the more effort into such displays, the more intense the homoeroticism, UFC being of great example).

It is no coincidence that such people exude a confidence that eclipses even the most ardent displays of contrived masculinity (yet ironically, the more effort into such displays, the more intense the homoeroticism, UFC being of great example).

My thoughts exactly. I’m always reminded of that scene from Airplane where little Joey goes to visit the cockpit only to have the captain ask him: “Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?”

I think a parody of a male Harper fan would be more illustrative, not to mention novel.

True. I wonder, though, whether there’s a way to make such a thing outré and absurd enough to escape the danger of being mistaken for a slice-of-life treament of Mark Steyn. I suppose one could feature a scene in which Steyn fixes a strap-on to a blow-up doll wearing a Harper mask and has his Filipina maid bugger him with it, but, aside from that, I see few satirical opportunities.

On the topic of leadership contenders, the only viable person would be Prentice, but as Ruby demonstrates, he seems to be hiding in the background quite possibly to avoid being lumped in with the likes of Baird and Flaherty. He appears competent to me, but he could be just another Ernie Eves. I would like to be nostalgic about Joe Clark, but I tend to get the Wellsian attack line of “well, you like him because he is defeatable.” That is not true because I would even tolerate a Joe Clark-like government who can at least put forward ideologically sensitive yet sensibly policy driven initiatives rather than the ideological shot gun and vomit induced spin approach of our current elected stewards who would have trouble captaining the Love Boat.

It’s not as straightforward as effeminacy or latent homosexuality. It’s more complex than that and likely intimately linked with the Conservative male’s insecurity with respect to his status…as a male.

I do not need your patronizing pity, especially since I just simply make observations not value judgements on social tendencies of ardent partisans even allowing for exceptions that add to the their complexity and speculate as to why (because any living breathing human being would notice the increasing encroachment of metrosexuality among males these days that doesn’t stop at just one political constituency) , or did you not read that far into my comment before you ceremoniously set up the straw man only slay it with such unbridled determination as with many partisans I encounter?

Your laughable assertion that my pointing out these things is along the lines of someone who is a racist speaks more to your thinking than mine. As a reading comprehension exercise, I invite you to find exactly where I wrote that I definitively stated that “all” conservative males fit into these categories because if you did, it would certainly be a figment of your imagination like the rest of your response. What I did say was that those who voraciously almost to a fault defend traditional gender roles have androgynous tendencies because I implicitly recognize that there may be still red tories (present company excluded, RT) within the party who are not all that concerned with such questions. Otherwise, I would just committing the same logical silliness as those “wholesome” heterosexual families whom I critiqued in RT’s post about the Texas kissing protest. After all, I have enough self awareness, and that also allows me to be minimally charitable enough to make sure what and whom I critique are a special case not some all encompassing “box” as so you erroneously put it.

Though I have trouble saying the same for you. Perhaps maybe you could have asked me to clarify rather than embarking on your chimerical quixotic quest? Or would that be asking too much? I hate to break it to you, but it is hardly sufficient to criticize someone using the very same thing for which you criticized him or her let alone groundbreaking to associate a person with racists in such a reactionary and knee jerk fashion.

But if you want to engage in such puerile pontifications, as you say “fill your boots.”

There is no doubt in my mind that men who have “crushes” on Harper are all a little like Walter Mitty, and are using Harper’s politics and charisma (or lack of) as a surrogate for their own unfulfilled lives.

And yet another post-Modern moment on Red Tory. Tomm pulls a “HarperGirl”: in an unmotivated amplification of the disorientation triggered by the original post, he performs a right-wing parody so deadpan and straight-faced that it seems in earnest. Amazing. I admit: even I almost bought it.

So Tomm, what’s your response to the discovery that your parodic voice is almost indistinguishable from your real one? And I’m not asking in a smart-arsed way.

Incidentally, your parody had a fatal flaw that provided me with a “tell”. I know bloody well that you would never claim to be “wearing the pants” in your household without first putting your tongue in your cheek (which is, I am sure, where Canadian womanhood wants it kept 😉 ).

“So Tomm, what’s your response to the discovery that your parodic voice is almost indistinguishable from your real one?”

Oh I don’t know, disgust? pride?

Did you ever see the Woody Allen movie Zelig? If you felt entertained, I have done my job.

If I offended jkg I apologize, but somehow I don’t think I did.

I’m actually surprised that you had to do a double take. Perhaps irony can become so thick that it ceases to be visible. Kind of like a heavy cologne that causes your nose to just pretend that there is no odor.

Maybe I have just tapped into the world of the new media. Maybe this is how FOX News maintains its sense of self. The odor has become so thick and putrid that there is no odor at all. How else do we explain Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff, or others of their ilk?

No Tomm, you didn’t offend me. Like I said, your response was something I have encountered before many times, and I customarily and wearily point out its shortcomings. Admittedly, I paused as it occurred to me that such statements could not have been done in absolute earnest and seriousness. However, it is because I have seen that so many times before as a serious yet outlandish criticism of what I write that I automatically went into response mode, and embarrassingly, did not consider the possibility that it was parodic in nature.

That is probably the genius of your parodic voice as it is cushioned in a plausible reality if the journal and media comment boards are any indication (though the using such a place like the CBC as a proxy of general opinion might be rather silly as I am sure some of the comments are supposed to be rather ironic).

In any event, unlike Sir Francis, I fell for it, and I tip my hat to you as your deadpan parody being somewhat indistinguishable is probably more of a testament to your self awareness (which I originally thought you lacked, but I man, I was certainly wrong).